Engineering talk:Categorisation
(Discussion from Talk:Main Page moved here in late November) Very recent comments on my talk page are about categories. This may be a more obvious place for discussing them, though maybe it's time we had a page called project:categorisation. Robin Patterson Same as Wikipedia? In subjects closest to the heart of engineering, I suggest we have all of Wikipedia's categories and probably some more. Where the subjects are on the fringe of engineering (eg education?), I suggest we start with all of Wikipedia's categories but expect to drop some of them when it becomes obvious that there won't be more than a couple of subcategories of interest to engineers. Robin Patterson 11:29, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :I'd disagree here; the category structure does not need to reflect wikipedia's. This should not be just a copy of wikipedia abridged to focus on engineering. For starters, Category:Engineering is at the top level here (where it belongs), whereas in wikipedia it's buried way down in Category:Applied Sciences, next to Law and Journalism. Here it makes more sense to have it at the top and put also at the top the other major subjects (i.e., Science). siafu 22:38, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Addendum--Category:Technology might also go at the top. siafu 22:41, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Hello; I hadn't looked at your above comments till you prodded me! You're not really disagreeing much if at all, as far as I can see. We can use Wikipedia (in order to save a lot of thinking and typing) as far as it's useful, and you engineers can start diverging whenever you like. If you want things like Science and Technology to share top level, that's not a problem with me. Robin Patterson 13:22, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) (copied Dore's following contribution from Talk:Main Page) So far it appears no article has come up on practical side of Power stations proper in the English version. With these new articles coming up the categories and sub categories may require recasting. One such recasting is shown below for Administrators in the organization involved in such duties. I do not want to venture as I am not fully conversant with Wiki requirements. Main page--portals-Categories-Technology-Energy- -Electric power----Appears OK up to this point. Sub categories to be added under Electric power: ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION Sub categories: To be added POWER PLANT, Sub categories: THERMAL FOSSILE power plant and NUCLEAR power plant, HYDRO power plant and pumped storage power plant; OTHERS like wind mill, solar etc; Under Electric power, ‘Power plants’ can be shifted to the corresponding type indicated above. For articles the authors should indicate the correct category from the above categories indicated, if felt necessary. --Dore chakravarty 19:53, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC) :The "text" part of a category page can have a list of suggestions for subcategories, as Dore suggests above. But there's no value in creating any new category until there is at least one article for it. :An author of a new page should give the page a category or two. Certainly choose from someone's list if it helps. Then other contributors can add categories (and even - if really sure - delete the category the original author used). :Robin Patterson 02:31, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC) Categorisation-finalising After having included many articles, I find, that to give category for each article still is confusive to me. Better it is made clear in Categorisation itself as this is only Engineering Wikicities. Hence now it is better to concentrate on engineering topics only (as already suggested in Engineering:Engineerfication) and not about chemsitry, metallurgy, physics, history, biodata etc. whcih we find in Wikipedia. To some extent these can come under engineering depending on the article content, which author has to justify and administrators(they may refer to others if they feel so) have to accept. My opinion now is as under. : Have only few main Enginering categories as under. ::Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Agriculture, Bio, Space, etc. :::Under each there can be sub categories as under; ::::Under Civil, :::::Roads, Buildings, Dams etc. ::::Under Mechanical :::::Mechinery which may include Transport equipment, Stationery equipment (includes power gerating plant etc. ::::Under Electrical :::::Heavy equipment(includes heavy circuit breakers, heavy switches, transmission pylons, conductors etc), light equipment (includes low voltage switch gear for domestic use, etc)., electronic engineering etc. ::::Under Agriculture :::::(Differnt sub and subsub categories as suggested by Agri.engineers.) ::::Under Bio, :::::Medical equipment, elctronics etc. ::::Under Space engineering, :::::Space environment, space vehicles etc. To start with categorisation as per Wikipedia is very good. Now the details could be worked out and finalised early taking suggestions also from Mr. Robin Patterson, Mr. Srini and Mr. siafu. --Dore chakravarty 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :There speaks a truly experienced engineer (retired, maybe). I'm sure that's the way the categories will develop. Any contributor can edit any page and put it in an additional - more engineer-focused - category. And if the page is in several categories, some of which have very little else in them and are not of interest to engineers, the references to those less relevant categories can be deleted from that page. :It is sensible, however, to leave each article in at least two categories, so that there are different lists it will appear in and so that related pages are more obvious. :Robin Patterson 07:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)